Bilas' Latest - Overhauling the NCAA

[SilkyJ]

Its an insider article (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=5734061) (ESPN seems to be making a lot of his articles premium...or at least I assume its their call...) so sorry about that, but Jay advocates for two major reforms from the NCAA:

1. Redefine Amateurism To Allow Outside Compensation
2. Throw out the NCAA rule book and start over to make the rules sensible, reasonable and sport-specific (including a fair system of enforcement and adjudication)

He also believes the NCAA needs to make these reforms (and possibly others) or risk collapsing.

Its a 3,000 word article so hard to summarize, but in terms of reform #1, Jay advocates for allowing marketing and sponsorship deals. He points to Olympic athletes who still compete for the love of the game despite receiving marketing deals.

Jay discusses reform #2 in the context of the current rule book being too thick, too broad and too "reaction-based."

[cspan37421]

While I can't comment on the specifics of the article, not having read it, I have given a bit of thought to the idea of paying college athletes. I think backers of that notion have plenty of good arguments on their side, not the least of which is that even a free education, even if valued at $50,000-$200,000 over 4 years (in-state public/private), is somewhat stingy compensation compared to what they bring in for the school. Years ago in Duke Magazine, one of our own (I don't think it was Spanarkel, but maybe Dick Devenzio?) made a lengthy case for it.

What I don't get is this: would that not create an even more un-level playing field unless you have hard caps on compensation? Even if you have caps on what they can be paid, you've

a) got to police that, because you've gained nothing in terms of saving enforcement $$;

b gained nothing in terms of reducing cheating (you just have over-the-table payments to go along with the under-the-table ones, which would probably continue unabated - why would they not?),

c) put smaller schools and less well-endowed schools at a big disadvantage. I'd be interested in their opinions on this idea.

I still think that if the NBA wants a minor league, like the NBDL, let them pay pre-NBA players there. College athletics should be our student-athletes versus their student-athletes. We should be cheering on our classmates, not our hired guns.

In what is supposed to be a competitive landscape, why should the best team just be the school that is, effectively, the highest bidder? Should not the great teams and champions be decided by the efforts of coaches and players on the court, rather than effectively determined a priori in the payroll department?

It seems to me that players who want to financially profit from the fruit of their labor should be permitted to turn pro WHENEVER they want (NBA, NBDL, etc). This locking out of ADULTS (18+) who are ready to earn a living is, IMO, unfair (even if the union agreed to it). And if owners and GMs have to have their hands held so that they don't make a mistake with some young kid who isn't ready, well, they're not worthy of the job, and hopefully that problem corrects itself over time. Point is, stop forcing kids who want nothing to do with college and academics to pretend to be students. It's a farce and it cheapens us all.

</soapbox>

[wilko]

[URL="http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog?name=bilas_jay&id=5734061"]Jay advocates for two major reforms from the NCAA:

1. Redefine Amateurism To Allow Outside Compensation
2. Throw out the NCAA rule book and start over to make the rules sensible, reasonable and sport-specific (including a fair system of enforcement and adjudication)



Son Of a Gun...
I've often thought the NCAA should extend amateurism to the D-League. Give the guys that NEED a paycheck a way to get it. This, while leaving the door open to GO to college in the event their talents don't quite match a players ego/press clippings.

[LSanders]

I really like Jay's articles and agree with him most of the time. While I haven't read this one, I disagree with item #1.

In a professional setting, there's some "RELATIVE" logic. Put more butts in the seats; get a bigger slice of the pie. How would that work for colleges? Duke could far outspend Butler, but be far outspent by Florida. Is that how stars of the future will decide where to go ... size of the budgets? Sure, I realize Jay didn't advocate paying college athletes but allow marketing deals like Olympic athletes. But, once the door is opened, how do you control what gets inside? There are SOOOOOOOO many problems with paying athletes that, IMO, it should be off the table.

So, what about sponsorships/marketing deals? You're telling me a kid with a $1 mil Nike deal in his back pocket is really all that worried about the history mid-term? And, why are marketing deals being discussed? Olympic athletes theoretically pay for training and living expenses out of their deals. Isn't that part of what scholarships provide in college?

I also disagree with the "disparity" between what a college athlete brings into a university and what they get in return. How much money is Peyton Manning worth to the Colts in ticket sales, TV coverage/viewership, jersey, etc. sales, and everything else? He makes a ton of money, but how does it compare to his total value to the franchise? Sure, the gap in college is greater, but it's also harder to separate the athlete from the team. We all love Kyle/Nolan/Kyrie/etc., but wouldn't our blood run just as blue without them?

There's also the issue of marketing value colleges help bring TO the athlete. Let's face it, we're only talking about the top 1% or so of athletes ... The ones who have NBA/NFL/etc. futures. We've all known about Kyrie for ages. What about the rest of the country? How will that change after a season and tourney in which he plays on ESPN virtually every game. Think his draft position isn't at least partially affected by the pub he will bring to the NBA franchise? Look at the Wizards. Sure, Wall is special and would justify a #1 position on talent alone. But, after a season as part of the KY (jelly) pub machine, the mighty Wizard PR machine must have been drooling, and it wasn't because of his crossover.

There is no pure quid pro quo and never will be. But, personally, I think allowing personal money into college sports means opening a whole case of canned worms.

[-jk]

For those who missed it, Jay stopped by a month ago to discuss some related issues. You can find the discussion here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?22384-Bilas-Latest-and-Greatest-Pearl-Bledsoe-and-UNC&p=434256#post434256).

-jk

[SCMatt33]

I don't like to overtly post excess info or links from premium services, but I will say that I "read it" on the college basketball page (yes, there actually is one) of a certain social news website whose logo is a cartoon alien.

Anyway, I highly encourage everyone to read this article before criticizing blindly because this isn't a few paragraphs thrown together to say, the system is broken, pay players. It is a well thought out article that discusses the antiquated social background of amateurism among other things.

As for my general thoughts, prior to reading the article, I was always skeptical of any system that would involve paying players on any level. It's not that I don't think that these guys don't deserve compensation, but there are two obstacles that would be very difficult to overcome: already tight athletics budgets and Title IX. There are very few schools in the country whose athletics departments run at a profit. Even with a bump in donations to support it, it would be difficult for many athletics departments to pay players any significant amount of money without that money coming from the school itself, which would not be deemed acceptable at many schools. Title IX would also be a huge problem.

While the enforcement of Title IX is extremely complex, one of the underlying principles is that athletes and teams of both genders must receive equal treatment. As it currently stands, a school could technically spend more money per capita on it's football team compared to the volleyball team and still be in compliance, as long as they receive equal treatment. For example, including pads and helmets, football uniforms cost a heck of a lot more than volleyball uniforms. Title IX is much more strict when it comes to scholarships awarded. To account for the vast amount of scholarships allowed to football, in nearly every sport in which both genders can participate, the women's teams are allowed more scholarships. The lone exception is lacrosse, in which men are allowed 12.6 equivalent scholarships, and only 12 for women, still pretty close. Any payments would be treated similarly and it would be difficult for schools to justify paying so many athletes in non-revenue sports. You can't just make it happen for football and men's basketball.

These would be non-issues in Jay's proposed system as the school is still barred from making any sort of payments to the players. Money will only come from the player's own ability to make income. I'm pretty ambivalent as to what the right way to go is, but Jay seems have the first system that I've seen that would be more than lip service to players and may actually be somewhat feasible in theory, even if it were very unlikely to happen in reality.

[4decadedukie]

I will enjoy reading Jay's always articulate and well-reasoned proposals (presuming I can find a method to access them), especially since we engaged in a rather "spirited DBR discussion" regarding amateurism, academic qualifications, and so forth a few weeks ago.

I would concur that the extent system is overly complex (perhaps unworkable), and unfortunately it is also unrealistic. However -- and remembering that I have not had the benefit of Jay's specific recommendations and their rationale -- I have two serious initial concerns (again, based solely on the information thus far posted to this thread):

1) THE CREATION OF CLASSES OF INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETES. In a university setting, I believe that ideally classmates (and all students, administrators and faculty, for that matter) should be largely integrated; this encourages the diversity of thoughts and backgrounds, it provides real mentorship opportunities, and it additionally greatly enhances true learning. Thus, the excellent football player and the equally outstanding musician could become friends, could share experiences and ideas, and could enrich each others' college education. This, after all, is at the core of the resident, undergraduate experience, it is a fundamental purpose of "Freshman East" at Duke, and it is a primary reason Duke Undergraduate Admissions works so hard to balance each class with exceptionally talented youngsters, all of whom are scholastically and intellectually able to contribute to their classmates' college experiences. We already have some degree of intercollegiate sports inequity between the revenue and the non-revenue athletes (IMHO, this is not prevalent at Duke, but it is commonplace at institutions such as many Big 10 and Big 12 schools). Wouldn't Jay's concept severely exacerbate this unfortunate pattern by creating "have and gave not" athletes? A football or basketball player might receive thousands of dollars each year, but the field-hockey or cross-country athlete would not. Even worse, could this concept allow "have and have nots" on the same team, with the few professionally-destined athletes receiving financial remuneration, but the majority of their teammates being uncompensated? In my substantial leadership experiences, this sort of thing would be virtually certain to undermine gravely the teamwork, the selflessness, the discipline, the cohesiveness, and the team-oriented-goal-achievement that is at the heart of every successful squad.

2) ADEQUATE OVERSIGHT AND CONTROLS. If funds were disbursed only to the handful of revenue sports student-athletes whose professional potential justified significant expenditures, what controls -- if any -- would be applied on their immediate use? Would this imply a new BMW or Corvette in every such kid's dorm parking area? If so, that is certain to emasculate a great deal that is fundamental both to the aggregate undergraduate experience and to intercollegiate athletics (please see #1, above). In addition, how could the NCAA, the conferences, the universities and others entities and individuals ensure that revenue collegiate sports remained untainted by illicit interests? Point-shaving (and other illegal and unethical gambling techniques) apparently widely occurred in college basketball only a few decades ago. Could a compensation scheme similar to Jay's recommendation result in such felonious activities and, if so, wouldn't this be extremely corrosive to intercollegiate athletics, their participants, and the overall fan-base that support sports?

As I indicated above, the current system is FAR from perfect. However, well-intentioned and intelligent individuals have labored, for many years, to evolve it. I believe we must be EXTREMELY CAREFUL, PRUDENT and JUDICIOUS in the assessment and the potential implementation of proposed changes, to ensure we do not create a LONG-TERM debacles that is even more flawed that the existing system.

[gam7]

Wish I were young and with it enough to know which social media site has a cartoon character logo... Oh well, I'll comment blindly (and briefly). Scmatt is right. Title xi would be a major problem here if schools are paying stipends. As for marketing deals, inevitably deals would trickle down to high schoolers and the companies with whom these kids have deals would likely end up trying to steer kids to certain schools even more than they do now. Nike kids to Nike schools for e.g. I'd imagine bilas addressed this issue but i can't find the article...

[Jderf]

I will enjoy reading Jay's always articulate and well-reasoned proposals (presuming I can find a method to access them), especially since we engaged in a rather "spirited DBR discussion" regarding amateurism, academic qualifications, and so forth a few weeks ago.

I would concur that the extent system is overly complex (perhaps unworkable), and unfortunately it is also unrealistic. However -- and remembering that I have not had the benefit of Jay's specific recommendations and their rationale -- I have two serious initial concerns (again, based solely on the information thus far posted to this thread):

1) THE CREATION OF CLASSES OF INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETES. In a university setting, I believe that ideally classmates (and all students, administrators and faculty, for that matter) should be largely integrated; this encourages the diversity of thoughts and backgrounds, it provides real mentorship opportunities, and it additionally greatly enhances true learning. Thus, the excellent football player and the equally outstanding musician could become friends, could share experiences and ideas, and could enrich each others' college education. This, after all, is at the core of the resident, undergraduate experience, it is a fundamental purpose of "Freshman East" at Duke, and it is a primary reason Duke Undergraduate Admissions works so hard to balance each class with exceptionally talented youngsters, all of whom are scholastically and intellectually able to contribute to their classmates' college experiences. We already have some degree of intercollegiate sports inequity between the revenue and the non-revenue athletes (IMHO, this is not prevalent at Duke, but it is commonplace at institutions such as many Big 10 and Big 12 schools). Wouldn't Jay's concept severely exacerbate this unfortunate pattern by creating "have and gave not" athletes? A football or basketball player might receive thousands of dollars each year, but the field-hockey or cross-country athlete would not. Even worse, could this concept allow "have and have nots" on the same team, with the few professionally-destined athletes receiving financial remuneration, but the majority of their teammates being uncompensated? In my substantial leadership experiences, this sort of thing would be virtually certain to undermine gravely the teamwork, the selflessness, the discipline, the cohesiveness, and the team-oriented-goal-achievement that is at the heart of every successful squad.

2) ADEQUATE OVERSIGHT AND CONTROLS. If funds were disbursed only to the handful of revenue sports student-athletes whose professional potential justified significant expenditures, what controls -- if any -- would be applied on their immediate use? Would this imply a new BMW or Corvette in every such kid's dorm parking area? If so, that is certain to emasculate a great deal that is fundamental both to the aggregate undergraduate experience and to intercollegiate athletics (please see #1, above). In addition, how could the NCAA, the conferences, the universities and others entities and individuals ensure that revenue collegiate sports remained untainted by illicit interests? Point-shaving (and other illegal and unethical gambling techniques) apparently widely occurred in college basketball only a few decades ago. Could a compensation scheme similar to Jay's recommendation result in such felonious activities and, if so, wouldn't this be extremely corrosive to intercollegiate athletics, their participants, and the overall fan-base that support sports?

As I indicated above, the current system is FAR from perfect. However, well-intentioned and intelligent individuals have labored, for many years, to evolve it. I believe we must be EXTREMELY CAREFUL, PRUDENT and JUDICIOUS in the assessment and the potential implementation of proposed changes, to ensure we do not create a LONG-TERM debacles that is even more flawed that the existing system.

Great post. I agree that this kind of rule change would be problematic. The problem I have with Jay's first proposal (that student-athletes should be allowed outside marketing deals) is two-fold.

First, only a very small handful of college athletes are going to be viable candidates for marketing and promotion. As 4decadedukie points out, this kind of rule change would give the overwhelming majority of student-athletes zero benefit. Should we really be looking to over-haul the entire system just to try and lure the John Walls and Derrick Roses away from the NBA? In light of points (1) and (2) in 4decadedukie's post, I don't think the benefits would outweigh the problems.

Second, this system would create a huge recruiting advantage for the large state schools. The top athletes would no longer be concerned with what school offers the best coaching, resources, or environment. Instead, they would be looking for the school with the biggest fan base where they can best market themselves. This would obviously be pretty damaging for Duke; our fans may be extremely loyal, but we are relatively small in number when compared to the big state schools.

[BD80]

In Jay's plan is there a difference between "marketing" and a cash payment from a booster?

OSU's Pickens could offer "marketing" contracts to the eighty best players in the nation if they became Cowboys? He can throw "marketing" parties and assemble a few hunderd of the top high school recruits and their families at his mansion with several hundred comely "marketing associates" and swag bags with Rolex watches?

I don't think anything would change with Kentucky Basketball, except the boosters' accounting entries for the payments to players. :rolleyes:

As for TItle IX, it is really not that "restrictive." It has only been judicially and administratively interpretted to be so restrictive. There are several criteria a school can use to "balance" equal treatment under the law. Problem is, even reasonable plans can be challenged in court, which will destroy the school's athletic budget, so the school caves to pressure. Don't get me started on the Title IX decisions rendered by social activist judges. Suffice it to say schools are smart to avoid challenges in court. The amusing aspect of Jay's plan is that it would entirely avoid Title IX, because the athletes would be dealing with entities that aren't bound by Title IX.

[SCMatt33]

In Jay's plan is there a difference between "marketing" and a cash payment from a booster?

OSU's Pickens could offer "marketing" contracts to the eighty best players in the nation if they became Cowboys? He can throw "marketing" parties and assemble a few hunderd of the top high school recruits and their families at his mansion with several hundred comely "marketing associates" and swag bags with Rolex watches?

I don't think anything would change with Kentucky Basketball, except the boosters' accounting entries for the payments to players. :rolleyes:

As for TItle IX, it is really not that "restrictive." It has only been judicially and administratively interpretted to be so restrictive. There are several criteria a school can use to "balance" equal treatment under the law. Problem is, even reasonable plans can be challenged in court, which will destroy the school's athletic budget, so the school caves to pressure. Don't get me started on the Title IX decisions rendered by social activist judges. Suffice it to say schools are smart to avoid challenges in court. The amusing aspect of Jay's plan is that it would entirely avoid Title IX, because the athletes would be dealing with entities that aren't bound by Title IX.

Jay does suggest prohibiting all payments from schools and representatives. This actually brings up an interesting topic on whether official school sponsors would count as representatives. Obviously, Pickens would be barred from paying Oklahoma state players, but could Nike sign players at Duke, UNC, or Oregon. Every school is officially affiliated with one of the shoe companies, so you could argue that they are representative of the school.

In professional leagues, there are official partners of teams and leagues, and you see players in their actual jerseys for their ads, but players often sign independent endorsement deals and that's when you see them in a generic jersey in their team's colors. These details would be far too complex for Jay to discuss in a single article, though I'm sure as a lawyer, he has an idea of what he would do.

One of the flaws in Jay's system is that it doesn't get rid of any of the amateurism problems, it just passes them off to the high school level. This is really a situation where you can't win. Agents and shoe companies already try to get to kids at a young age to get their foot in the door. If it becomes legal at a certain age, agents will just go younger. It's kind of like tournament expansion in this regard. When there were 65 teams, number 66 complained. Expansion to 68 just means that 69 will complain. It doesn't stop the complaining. This solution won't stop athletes from receiving money that they shouldn't, it just won't be college athletes anymore.

[gumbomoop]

For an unofficial response to Bilas's critique of the NCAA, try this link: http://www.ncaa.org/blog/2010/10/jay-bilas-often-interesting-frequently-overheated/

"Until recently, I believed that no commentator could possibly have it in for the NCAA more than National Public Radio’s Frank Deford.

Move over, Frank. There’s a new hit man in town.... ESPN’s Jay Bilas...."


The author is an NCAA guy, but the fine print clearly states that he's expressing personal opinion, not official NCAA views. Describing Bilas's criticisms of the NCAA as "overheated," while characterizing Bilas as a "hit man," may constitute something akin to the pot calling the kettle black; but on the whole it's a measured response.

[AZLA]

Fine, pay college athletes like you would professors, coaches or general staff. Full-time equivalents, whatever. Then tax them accordingly and have them pay full tuition and expenses. Also hold everyone accountable not to the student handbook, but to employee policies and procedures including drug testing and background checks. It will be an "at will" relationship whereby coaches or programs can fire new hires within 90 days or later if they violate employee policies. Student athletes who don't like their employee value proposition or are cut, can then leave and immediately work (play) for another team. In fact, in this future state, why not allow for mid-season trades like the pros? And with education now being voluntary, that would free up time for an 82 game season in basketball. Nice. Ensure there is a performance evaluation program in which top performers are evaluated and their year-end compensation is tied to achievement (in the playing arena and of course, not based on academic merit). Whatever the case, education can then be considered voluntary. Because, and lets be honest, it doesn't take a four-year degree to learn to put a ball in a hoop. IRS can de-classify "scholarship" programs in which donors cannot write-off their donations and universities and third-party programs can be taxed as corporations and will no longer have to burden themselves with non-profit / educational tax benefits. They can negotiate their own coverage with insurers and hold open enrollment each fall, which of course, up to forty percent of their income will be earmarked to cover it. Current top earning programs can dominate the recruiting process, make small colleges and upstart programs obsolete and unsustainable, including the non-essential sports programs that "piggy back" on the monetary earning programs typically associated as "academic sports." No need to mention Title IX and female sports -- yawn. So, this will be a good way to finally rid the world of plaid-skirted field hockey players and Zuckerberg-esque fencers and "Winklevi" rowers. Even if some of the big program revenue drips down to the obscure programs -- so be it -- who cares if a football quarter back drives a beamer while a soccer player drives an old Vespa. Besides, those more obscure sports are doing nothing but distracting from what everyone really wants to see -- droves of Sonny Vaccaros fighting over which athlete gets stamped with a Nike swoosh or the Adidas Triple Stripe. In addition, branding should extend to fans in the stands. It's only fair that a Hoop Head or Viking Guy or FSU Cow Girls be compensated (based on market value) for prominently displayed logo if he or she can get some good face time. I mean, colleges are educating students to feed into the corporate machine -- and with ABC ESPN demanding 3 times the price of the average subscriber fee -- it stands to reason that they should just break down the meaningless concept of "amateurism" since the NCAA is going to collapse anyhow. Let's just speed up the inevitable and call a spade a spade. There's just too many suffering big sport athletes out there in the world for the NCAA to let this go on any longer.

[Spam Filter]

If players are paid by outside entities, then that's who they'll be playing for, not the schools they attend or the coaches. They will go to whichever school those who are paying them tell them to go, and recruiting will turn into coaches recruiting these entities rather than the players themselves.

Furthermore, the players will also pay more attention to their "employers" rather than the coaches. Should they have a minor injury, the staff physician may clear them but if their employers tell them to rest an extra day, who do you think he'll listen to? And if they tell him them want him to shoot more, does he listen?

How can any coach work effectively in that kind of environment?

It would be the end of NCAA basketball and what remains will not even be recognizable.